The shadow of an enemy
source : BKKPOST
In films, literature, and media, Burma is Thailand's arch enemy, but there may be little truth to the popular perception, and a recent seminar suggests the reality is much less dramatic
Nusara Thaitawat
Thousands of Burmese soldiers, ugly and thirsty for blood, march on Ayutthaya, killing, raping, and looting. They burn everything to the ground, even religious relics, as Ayutthaya's soldiers and citizens, men and women alike, fight with heroism to protect their capital. It's yet another movie being made of the 1767 fall of Ayutthaya. Factional fiction or fictional fact, it seems few are interested in searching for the truth in Thai-Burmese relations today.
The "fact" that Burma is Thailand's arch enemy is so deeply rooted in the Thai psyche not because of the cruellest of wars between the two countries, but as a result of myth-making over the centuries, part of a well-designed strategy of nation building, according to leading academics.
Dr Sunait Chutintaranond, respected Burma expert from Chulalongkorn University, cites the case of the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767-a date that all Thais who go through the formal educational system in the country must know-in which Burma is portrayed as the enemy of Buddhism. During the period of modern nation building in the face of Western colonial advances in Southeast Asia in the reign of King Rama V, Burma was no longer portrayed as such for its unforgivable 1767 victory, but rather as the enemy of the Thai nation, he said.
"The 'fact' that Burma is our arch enemy has been institutionalised and at the same time fictionalised in popular movies. Today this fictionalisation is out of control," Dr Sunait said.
At a recent three-day seminar entitled "From Fact to Fiction: A History of Thai-Myanmar Relations in Cultural Context" organised by Chulalongkorn's Institute of Asian Studies and Faculty of Arts, Thai and Burmese scholars were brought together at the university to explore how this fictionalisation was accomplished.
Three movies were shown. The first portrayed how Thai film directors generally see Burma. Suriyothai, six years in the making and still in the works under Thailand's foremost film director, Prince Chatri Chalerm Yugala, portrays the heroism of Queen Suriyothai, who goes into battle to help her king fight the invading Burmese army. She dies in action on the battlefield.
The movie, to be released soon, is being advertised as the prince's greatest cinematographic achievement and as very much anticipated by the public for its theme and state-of-the-art special effects.
The second film was Never Shall we be Enslaved by Burma's leading director, Kyi Soe Tun, in which the enemy is also portrayed as ugly, bloodthirsty and cruel, while the helpless Burmese king and his citizens, men and women, fight with heroism. The movie was released in 1997 and received four national film awards in Burma-best film, best director, best supporting actor, and best editing.
Burma's arch enemy, however, is not Thailand, but the colonial power of Great Britain. Dr Sunait, a fluent Burmese speaker, said there are no fictionalised historical movies in which Burma portrays Thailand as its arch enemy. "In fact, we're never mentioned as an enemy," he said.
The third film was King of the White Elephants by Pridi Banomyong. First released in 1941, the movie was made in English with a cast of leading actors who were half Thai and half European. Dr Charnvit Kasetsiri of the Southeast Asian Studies programme of Thammasat University commented that the movie showed off all of Pridi's progressive ideals about good governance, good neighbourliness and the ethics which must be respected in times of unavoidable war.
The message was clear that war is between leaders and not the people, and it was a must to minimise the loss of civilians and low-ranking soldiers. "The movie was intended to send a message of peace," said Dr Charnvit.
Pridi was then finance minister under the government of Field Marshal Pibulsongkram. The film had disappeared during the tumultuous political events that sent Pridi into exile. It re-emerged after he left China, after 21 years in exile, for Paris in 1983.
The Burmese king in the movie is understood by Burmese viewers to be the King of Ava, but this interpretation is dismissed by both Dr Sunait and Dr Charnvit, who say he was just a fictional king.
At the seminar, Associate Professor Onchuma Yuthavong, an expert in theatre, commented on the difference between the historian and the dramatist in her speech on "Fact, Truth and Fantasy: The Intermingling of Reality and Imagination in Drama, Theatre Plays and Period Movies". They both search for the truth and reconstruct it based on whatever fragments they can find, she said.
"The process of reconstruction is where the historian and the dramatist part. The dramatist has the freedom to imagine and create and to say, 'This is my truth,' but this is a no-no for the historian, who must keep to the facts," she said. What makes a dramatist successful in movies based on historical fact is the ability to entertain the audience and ensure revenue at the box office. If they fail it's the end of the imagination and the dramatist has to face reality," she said.
As for the historian, success lies in presenting controversial new findings and new interpretations that can be validated. "But a historian is also a dramatist; mostly the historian dreams up a thesis and tries to find evidence to support this thesis," Prof Onchuma said.
Prince Chatri Chalerm, who brought a huge pile of history books on the 1767 invasion to the seminar, commented before the sneak preview of his movie that fiction cannot stray too far from the truth. He said that he was sceptical of Queen Suriyothai's existence but after going through historical data, he started to believe, and based his movie on what he admits is his own reading of history.
Directors decide, based on history, what events are most important in the lives they want to portray. Dr Jim Taylor of the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, commented that the evolution from fact to fiction was basically a response to socio-economic and political conditions.
He cited the case of the Thai Princess Suphankalaya, who is believed to be the elder sister of King Naresuan of Ayutthya. She is believed to have given herself as a prisoner in exchange for her captive younger brother. She eventually became a wife of the powerful Burmese King Burengnong (in Burmese, Bayinnaung) and after his death, a wife of his son, the new Burmese ruler, said Dr Taylor.
Suphankalaya had two children from the first king and was pregnant with the second monarch's child when he killed her in a rage after hearing that his son had been shot by her brother, King Naresuan.
Dr Taylor pointed out that the story of the princess is not discussed in any of the Thai chronicles and is mentioned only in passing in several Burmese chronicles, but she somehow developed a cult-like following in 1998 and '99.
Her creation, or re-creation, is attributed to cosmetics entrepreneur Dr Nalinee Paiboon, who found luck after her business collapsed and her subsequent divorce, by praying to the statue of King Naresuan. She funded research into the life of the princess.
The success of the myth of the princess, Dr Taylor said, was its timing. Thailand was going through its worst economic crisis and the feeling of insecurity and helplessness at being taken over by international financial institutions made the myth even more believable.
The perception, according to Dr Taylor, was that "belief in Suphankalaya will see one safely through the turgid and jagged period of the current economic crisis. It will also lead to an increased sense of personal security and gain, a refuge and safe domestic [and national] 'place'." The myth, seen as an urban phenomenon, is dying, though her pictures are still on sale in a few places in Bangkok and provincial towns.
The myth of Burma being Thailand's arch enemy, meanwhile, will continue to be perpetuated as scholars work hard to present another perspective on bilateral relations. The endless flow of methamphetamine tablets from the Burmese border, the influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal Burmese workers, the Ratchaburi hospital siege by ethnic insurgents from Burma, and the recent jail break by Burmese prisoners, will not help these academics.
Dr Sunait said there seems to be no other "worthy enemy" for Thailand. "We were never colonised so we can't portray a European country as our enemy. China is too far away, Laos is too small. Cambodia has been ungrateful but nothing more. As for Vietnam, we fought them but it was over Cambodia," he said.
At the end of the seminar, a group from the Faculty of Arts performed an old song which has long been forgotten-if it's even been heard-by the general public. It was a Thai-Burmese friendship song, composed especially for a Thai cultural mission sent to Burma in 1954.
It says, in essence:"Thailand and Burma will love each other forever/We are like brothers and sisters, sharing the same religion/We may be separated by a border, but we are from the same land/We share the same heartbeat."
The Burmese participants in the recent seminar attempted to highlight the more positive relations between the two countries. They pointed out that Burma's nationalist hero, Aung San, could not have rallied his support during World War Two without Thai help, even though Thailand was with the axis. Such truths, however, seem insignificant in the face of the established belief that Burma is Thailand's arch enemy.
Didn't the great Greek thinker Plato warn us long ago-there is no truth in the world, only the illusion of truth; that what we see is only a shadow of the truth?